W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > December 2012

Re: issue-60 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:17:25 +0100
Message-ID: <50C81365.2000700@w3.org>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Thank you, Jörg. Going the "stability path" seems also reasonable given 
this positive development
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Dec/0061.html

So the actions needed would be

1) clarification of "uncategorized"
2) having an example that demonstrates the usage in the MT scenario - 
not necessarily in the spec, but as part of best practices and to see 
the annotation the qt launchpad project would produce
3) update
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/Tool_specific_mappings#Mappings_for_Localization_Quality_Issue_Type
http://www.w3.org/International/its/ig/its20-tool-specific-mappings.html

Arle, would that work for you? If yes, when could you do 1-3?

With regards to Phil's mail at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-comments/2012Dec/0010.html
I see this as a different topic, but would prefer not to add values or 
attributes at this time, like with issue-60. Phil, if you still need 
this please create a seperate comment.

Best,

Felix

Am 11.12.12 20:57, schrieb Jörg Schütz:
> That's a very good solution to avoid a possible type value tsunami and 
> additional LC (if this is really the case with such an addition).
>
> By the way, your "1862" example is a candidate for the 
> "mistranslation" type.
>
> Cheers -- Jörg
>
> On Dec 11, 2012 at 18:31 (UTC+1), Arle Lommel wrote:
>> The other alternative is that we expand the semantics of "uncategorized"
>> slightly to allow for a more naturalistic interpretation such that it
>> doesn't mean "we haven't categorized it" to "we haven't or can't
>> categorize it". That would be satisfactory as well, I think, and less of
>> a change.
>>
>> -Arle
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:27 , Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de
>> <mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jörg is correct here that nothing has this already. This is really
>>> looking forward to QT Launchpad work. If saying "nobody has
>>> implemented this so far" disqualifies it, then we would be forced to
>>> use "uncategorized" and add some custom markup. That wouldn't be the
>>> end of the world for us, but it would be nice to have.
>>>
>>> However, see my last mail about how I see this as different.
>>>
>>> (I can say, up front, that if this isn't accepted I won't hold
>>> anything up over it, so the moment this causes real problems, we can
>>> drop it.)
>>>
>>> -Arle
>>>
>>> On 2012 Dec 11, at 18:15 , Jörg Schütz <joerg@bioloom.de
>>> <mailto:joerg@bioloom.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Felix,
>>>>
>>>> Since an additional value doesn't actually harm the type list which
>>>> certainly can be seen as open ended (but still backward compatible),
>>>> the need for a subsequent LC is questionable.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, the proposed quality type value "unintelligible" for
>>>> the described output case might be controversial because it does not
>>>> indicate/reflect a quality consideration as the other types in the
>>>> list do. The QT Launchpad project should therefore consider to use
>>>> "uncategorized" because this value might indicate the "trashy" 
>>>> quality.
>>>>
>>>> And TMK, I'm not aware of any language proofing technology that uses
>>>> "unintelligible" has a quality value.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers -- Jörg
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 05:17:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 December 2012 05:17:54 GMT